The latest incident involving artificial intelligence and the legal system occurred in a New York appeals court when a man named Jerome Dewald appeared via a video screen to present an argument in an employment dispute case. However, it was quickly discovered that Dewald did not have a law degree and the man on the screen was not a real person but an avatar generated by artificial intelligence. The judges were not pleased with this deception but allowed Dewald to continue with his argument despite the use of the AI-generated avatar.
Dewald later apologized to the court for the misunderstanding, explaining that he had intended no harm by using the avatar. He had chosen to represent himself in the lawsuit as he did not have a lawyer, and believed that the avatar would be able to deliver his legal arguments more effectively than his own stumbling and mumbling. Dewald explained that he had applied for permission to play a prerecorded video and used a product from a tech company in San Francisco to create the AI-generated avatar, which he had intended to look like himself.
While Dewald’s case represents a unique incident involving the use of artificial intelligence in the legal field, it is not the only example of AI causing problems for lawyers. In a separate case, two attorneys and a law firm were fined for using an AI tool for legal research that cited fictitious legal cases. Michael Cohen, a former personal lawyer for President Donald Trump, also made errors in using a Google tool for legal research that resulted in AI-generated court rulings being cited in legal papers. Despite these mishaps, Arizona’s Supreme Court intentionally began using AI-generated avatars to summarize court rulings for the public, indicating a potential trend in the legal industry.
Daniel Shin, an adjunct professor and assistant director of research at the Center for Legal and Court Technology at William & Mary Law School, expressed that the introduction of a fake person using AI in a legal setting was inevitable given the advancements in technology. However, he noted that lawyers would likely not engage in such practices due to professional regulations and the risk of being disbarred. Dewald’s situation highlights the lack of instructions and awareness among individuals representing themselves without legal counsel about the risks associated with using AI-generated videos in court proceedings.
Dewald mentioned that he had recently participated in a webinar sponsored by the American Bar Association discussing the use of AI in the legal world, indicating his interest in staying informed about technological advancements. As of the latest update, Dewald’s case was still pending before the appeals court. Despite the controversy surrounding his use of an AI-generated avatar to present his argument, it is evident that the intersection of AI and the legal system will continue to evolve, posing new challenges and opportunities for the legal profession.
